Re: [Pce] draft-dhody-pce-pcep-domain-sequence-01
"Daniel King" <daniel@olddog.co.uk> Thu, 02 February 2012 15:21 UTC
Return-Path: <daniel@olddog.co.uk>
X-Original-To: pce@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: pce@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D0FB821F85A5 for <pce@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 2 Feb 2012 07:21:20 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id cH6ZUUyywvjk for <pce@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 2 Feb 2012 07:21:20 -0800 (PST)
Received: from asmtp2.iomartmail.com (asmtp2.iomartmail.com [62.128.201.249]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0BA0121F85A4 for <pce@ietf.org>; Thu, 2 Feb 2012 07:21:18 -0800 (PST)
Received: from asmtp2.iomartmail.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by asmtp2.iomartmail.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id q12FL8KF003829; Thu, 2 Feb 2012 15:21:09 GMT
Received: from Serenity (88-97-23-122.dsl.zen.co.uk [88.97.23.122]) (authenticated bits=0) by asmtp2.iomartmail.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id q12FL6hb003797; Thu, 2 Feb 2012 15:21:07 GMT
From: Daniel King <daniel@olddog.co.uk>
To: dhruv.dhody@huawei.com, 'Ramon Casellas' <ramon.casellas@cttc.es>
Date: Thu, 02 Feb 2012 15:21:00 -0000
Message-ID: <00aa01cce1be$45be7f90$d13b7eb0$@olddog.co.uk>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 14.0
Thread-Index: Aczhvfw4wZMkqtoUQ/2mktZtNPzWSA==
Content-Language: en-gb
Cc: pce@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Pce] draft-dhody-pce-pcep-domain-sequence-01
X-BeenThere: pce@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Path Computation Element <pce.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/pce>, <mailto:pce-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/pce>
List-Post: <mailto:pce@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:pce-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce>, <mailto:pce-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 02 Feb 2012 15:21:20 -0000
Cool, thanks Dhruv. Can I suggest that when you submit the new version of draft-dhody-pce-pcep-domain-sequence, you also propose some text for draft-ietf-pce-inter-area-as-applicability, that describes the motivation/scope/requirements for the domain sequence representation/encoding. Br, Dan. -----Original Message----- From: dhruv [mailto:dhruv.dhody@huawei.com] Sent: 02 February 2012 12:57 To: 'Ramon Casellas'; 'Daniel King' Cc: pce@ietf.org Subject: RE: [Pce] draft-dhody-pce-pcep-domain-sequence-01 (applicability to draft-ietf-pce-inter-area-as-applicability) Dear Dan, Ramon and All, A new update of the draft is on the way which will close all open issues. I will hope for WG adoption after that. Bunch of other inter-domain effort in WG (HPCE, P2MP, etc) already references this document. As the role of "draft-ietf-pce-inter-area-as-applicability" to cover inter-domain applicability in a broad sense, IMHO, this work could be included/referenced now or in later stage. Regards, Dhruv -----Original Message----- From: pce-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:pce-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Ramon Casellas Sent: Thursday, February 02, 2012 5:02 PM To: Daniel King Cc: pce@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Pce] draft-dhody-pce-pcep-domain-sequence-01 (applicability to draft-ietf-pce-inter-area-as-applicability) On 02/02/2012 11:57 AM, Daniel King wrote: > Hi Ramon, All, > > We can widen the draft-ietf-pce-inter-area-as-applicability scope to include > "gaps", one of which may include domain sequence representation. As > usual though, we need to be able to demonstrate that new protocol > developments are > clearly required. Dear Dan, all You are right that draft-dhody should be included / referenced if/when it becomes a wg document. I will let Dhruv comment on the issues as I was not in Taipei, IIRC, there were some past emails on its need?. For what is worth, I personally think that what is addressed in the draft (i.e., the need to encode sequences, the need to constrain them and the need to convey some order semantics) is needed. I won't be so bold to state whether the current encoding / solution is to be retained :-), at least yet, and we can allow some time to mature. If I may, what is your view on this? Do you think it is addressing a non-issue? > The work (draft-dhody-pce-pcep-domain-sequence) is interesting, but > the document is not a WG draft and if I remember correctly > has multiple open issues/options that need to be distilled. I am afraid I don't have a clear list of them. Dhruv? > > 1. Does the working group need to standardise domain sequence > representation? If so, then I agree FWIW, I say yes. A personal use case is a constrain in the H-PCE computation (IRO + order semantics). I bought Dhruv's idea that working with domains is more flexible than working with PCE_IDs (both in hpce, and md-p2mp ) > 2. Is draft-dhody-pce-pcep-domain-sequence a suitable solution? If it isn't we would gladly address what is needed :). > 3. Should we adopt as a WG document? Until now, I have not considered requesting adoption. Personally, I can wait until it is further discussed and matures. Thanks for your comments R _______________________________________________ Pce mailing list Pce@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce